Doctors, Engineers, Journalists, etc., Without Borders
Doctors without borders. Journalists without borders. Educators without borders. Librarians without borders. Rivers without borders. Potters without borders. Hydrogeologists without borders. Facilitators without borders. Builders without borders. Life without borders. Students without borders. Veterinarians without borders. Friends without borders. MBAs without borders. Words without borders. Dogs without borders (see here). Mexicans without borders. Slavery without borders. Dumping without borders (see here).
These are only some of the quickly burgeoning groups that share the same last (two) name(s), "without borders."
What is going on here? What accounts for this new "without borders" initiative? What do all these groups have in common? Do they resemble each other in any way apart from choice of appellation? And, where are the "libertarians without borders?"
At first glance, these groups are as dissimilar as they can be. What, after all, do doctors, reporters and Mexicans share apart from their humanity, of course? But, by digging a little deeper we are able, at least, to hazard an informed guess as to what is going on.
All of these organizations are associated with leftish political philosophy in general, and with support for world government in particular.
Perusing the web sites of these various groups does not immediately yield this result. An examination of Doctors Without Borders, for example, exhibits, merely, concern with bringing medical attention to those in need, wherever they may be located. Similarly, Journalists Without Borders is devoted to safety for reporters wherever they may go, and Mexicans Without Borders is dedicated to open immigration (at least in a northward directions) between that nation and our own. It would be difficult to find more dissimilar concerns than these.
But an answer to our query is lurking in the underbrush. If that is all that Doctors Without Borders is concerned with, why do they not call themselves "Physicians for the needy," or "Have stethoscope and scalpel, will travel," or "Doctors who go anywhere?" Why have Journalists Without Borders eschewed such characterizations as "We’re reporters, we go to the ends of the earth" or "International journalists?" As for Mexicans Without Borders, why not "Mexicans against immigration restrictions?"
No, no. What they all have in common is, yes, an adherence to world government. Now, before we go any further, I have a confession to make. There is nary a word, heck, there is not a single solitary explicit indication linking any of these "Without Borders" groups to the world government philosophy. Nada, not one. But, I am involved here in an exercise in verstehen, not empirical evidence mongering.
What does "without borders" mean? Well if we interpret this narrowly, it means an aversion to borders. Which borders? City borders? No. The property borders between neighbors? Again, no. The answer is, of course, national borders. But what does this mean? Well, a world without national borders implies, at least for most people, wait for it, yes, World Government. For, this is precisely what world government is: no national borders on the entire planet. Instead of ultimate authority lying in the hands of some 200+ sovereign nations, it would be under the control of but one entity, located perhaps in New York City (the United Nations) or, more likely, in Brussels (the European Community).
There is of course one exception to this analysis, but this proves the rule, does not undermine it. Suppose there were a group called "libertarian anarchists for open borders." Then and only then would our insight not apply. For such advocates of open borders, too, as the name suggests, would also want to do away with the nation state. But would they want to substitute world government for these divided sovereignties? Perish the thought. No, they would favor decentralism down to the individual level.
That is, where all other "without borders" groups favor moving "up" from our present system of nation states to a one world government, anarchists for "without borders" would favor a move in the opposite direction, "down" in the direction of individual sovereignty.
